Consider the ban on large-capacity magazines. Despite the law’s broad scope, Krieger explains, “the statute’s impact on a person’s ability to keep and bear (use) firearms for the purpose of self-defense is not severe. Unlike the restriction considered [by the Supreme Court] in Heller, this statute does not ban any firearm nor does it render any firearm useless. Semiautomatic weapons can be used for self-defense in and outside of the home. … The only limitation imposed is how frequently they must reload their weapons.”

And how big of a restriction is that? Krieger says testimony established that instances when gun owners need to defend themselves or others by firing more than 15 rounds are extremely rare. In short, it simply “does not materially reduce the ability of a person to use a semiautomatic firearm for self-defense.”

Indeed, “many law enforcement agencies, including the Colorado State Patrol … equip their officers with 15-round or smaller magazines.” And yet the State Patrol obviously expects its officers will be able to adequately defend themselves.

Krieger is equally persuasive in rejecting arguments against background checks in the private transfer of weapons. After all, if background checks in the commercial sales of firearms are permissible — and they are — “nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest” that a similar burden cannot “be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan.”

It’s one thing for opponents of last year’s gun bills to argue they are unfair to law-abiding gun owners and will do little or nothing to deter criminals. But unconstitutional? That argument always seemed a big stretch, and Judge Krieger has now pretty much said as much.